Lumped-parameter models represent an attractive method for examining pressure dynamics involving complicated human physiology. In a lumped-parameter modeling approach, the physiological system is subdivided into a number of linked, interacting subunits termed “compartments.” In general, each compartment contains a single physical constituent, e.g., blood, cerebrospinalfluid (CSF), or tissue and interstitial fluid. However, depending on the model's complexity, a given constituent may appear in more than one compartment of the model. Dynamics in each compartment is specified by lumped, time-dependent functions giving compartmental pressures, while incremental changes in flows and compartmental volumes are obtained by associating resistance and compliance parameters with adjacent compartments. In particular, interaction between adjacent subunits is assumed to take place at the interfaces of the model's compartments.
With few exceptions, previous models of this type have adopted restrictions known as the “Kellie-Monro Doctrine” to reduce complexity. The Kellie-Monro framework considers the intracranial system to be completely enclosed within the intracranial vault, which is assumed to be rigid. A specified inflow of blood to the intracranial arteries provides a forcing for the system, and outflow from the jugular bulb is assumed to instantaneously equate to this inflow. These restrictions yield a closed system with constant total volume. Strictly intracranial models have produced a number of important results that illuminate the mechanisms of intracranial pressure adjustments in situations involving both normal and pathophysiology. However, the ability of these closed-system models to incorporate the influence of important extracranial factors on intracranial pressure dynamics is clearly limited. For example, the important buffering effects of the spinal CSF space on intracranial pressure cannot be directly included. From a mathematical point of view, the constant volume constraint also produces an over determined system of equations that requires special handling to avoid singular behavior.
Lumped-parameter compartmental models of the present type have a long history, dating to the earliest such model of the intracranial system formulated by Monro in 1783. This first model was bi-compartmental, considering incompressible brain matter and blood as its two constituents. In the work of Monro's student Kellie 40 years later, the vascular compartment was further subdivided into arterial and venous blood to produce a three-compartment model. Since the pioneering work of Monroe and Kellie, increasingly more complex models of the intracranial compartment have been posited in order to more realistically describe the relationship between intracranial pressures and volumes. There has been a steady increase in the number of fluid compartments, the introduction of a separate cerebrospinal fluid compartment, the inclusion of cardiovascular input, and a relaxation of the treatment of system constituents as incompressible fluids and matter. As noted in prior art studies, the intracranial system involves a number of subsystems, which interact through complex mechanisms, and the classical piecewise approach, which often considers CSF dynamics separately, is not suited to studying multiple parameter changes and the effects of interconnected subsystems on each other. By contrast, lumped-parameter models of the intracranial system are capable of including and linking different subsystems, so that such interactions can be examined.
When considering lumped parameter models, it is important to realize that a compartment does not necessarily correspond to a precise physical location in the body. For example, with a single CSF compartment in a model, CSF in the ventricles cannot be distinguished from CSF in the subarachnoid and spinal spaces. This is one of the main limitations of the lumped-parameter approach. Additional spatial resolution can be realized only by subdividing the physical system into a larger number of compartments based on spatial considerations. For example, distinct ventricular CSF and extra-ventricular CSF compartments may be included as opposed to a single lumped CSF compartment. In principle, the entire body could be finely subdivided in this manner into separate compartments to provide the desired degree of spatial resolution. However, clearly this subdivision process cannot be carried to an extreme as the resulting system of linked governing equations will rapidly become too large for practical analysis and solution.
Despite their evolving complexity, two common features characterize most earlier lumped parameter models for pressure dynamics in the intracranial system. The first common feature is an assumption that all resistance and compliance parameters can be represented by constants. This leads to a linear system of governing differential equations. The second common feature is adoption of the “Kellie-Monro Doctrine,” which assumes that the intracranial system can be confined within the cranial vault. By requiring that inflow to the intracranial arteries equals outflow from the jugular bulb, this assumption produces a closed system that conserves total intracranial volume.
As mentioned above, when the intracranial space is treated as a closed volume-conserving system contained within the (nearly) rigid cranial vault, important mechanisms for the influence of extracranial physiology on intracranial pressure dynamics cannot be included in the resulting models. For example, the ability of the spinal portion of CSF space to buffer fluctuations of intracranial CSF pressures cannot be directly introduced under the Kellie-Monro Doctrine. At least two prior art mathematical models of intracranial pressure dynamics include aspects of extracranial physiology. The first model includes a compliance for CSF storage within the lumbar channel. The first model contains three compliances, four resistances, and involves differential equations based on a hydrodynamic model for the physical system and its electrical circuit equivalent. The first model allows the dynamic relationship between cerebral perfusion pressure, intracranial pressure, and cerebral blood flow in various states of autoregulation to be studied. Use of the first model in conjunction with clinical data has determined which indices can be derived using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography and which trends of intracranial pressure and blood pressure are useful in clinical tests of autoregulatory reserve. However, despite not strictly abiding by the Kellie-Monro Doctrine, the first model falls far short of being a whole-body model for intracranial pressure dynamics. While the first model can include direct buffering effects of CSF within the lumbar channel, it does not contain other important extracranial physiology. For example, the first model fails to include representations for the extracranial physiology of the cardiovascular system and the tissues and extracellular fluids of both the central and lower body, including cardiovascular autoregulation, colloid osmotic pressure, and a lymphatic system.
The second model uses a single ground compartment to represent the portion of the body below the clavicles. The second model contains three resistances, including a resistance between the intracranial veins and the rest-of-body compartments. Thus, outflow from the intracranial system depends on pressure differences and need not instantaneously equal the specified inflow. The second model also contains three compliances, including a compliance between the CSF and rest-of-body compartment that represents the ability of the spinal portion of CSF space to expand and buffer CSF pressures by compressing the large veins that surround the spinal theca. Two of the three model compliances are pressure dependent. The associated functional forms for the pressure-dependent compliances determined in the second model are used in the present work. The second model still falls short of being a whole-body model for intracranial pressure dynamics. The second model merely lumps extracranial physiology into a single compartment, rather than finely subdividing it into a plurality of compartments. In addition, the second model fails to include the external environment as an implicit compartment.